I can see how this article, which I agree with, would upset the old-guard of the socialist intelligesia and rent a mob equally.

I vote anti-socialist for one reason - the stiffling oppression of my early life from the incompetent and useless policies of smallminded socialist thinkers who believed we should all be the same in their world of mediocracy. Like some reincarnation of the Cromwellian Levellers, no one allowed to express and shine in their individuality incase they cast a shadow on those of lesser ability.

We need less government not more,

My first object of incompetence which needs crushing - just as the Russians crushed all those statues of Stalin and Lenin would be

Commission for Equal Opportunity (aka - the college of toss-pots)

We could take the one or two "bright ones" from that outfit (ie those who can spell their own names and identify the odd flower or wild bird) and put them into the family law court - that is an organisation that needs a bit of "levelling".

Then we could look at Ministry for the Arts .......... and the wallies who spend money on employing unentertaining entertainers to bore the pants off the intellectually constipated. We would be better off if they just spent their time hanging up pictures of hemarroids painted purple (or do they come in purple anyway?).

Graham, your comments about the character issue, and "casting aspersions on the author" are again misconceived and misdirected. Anyone who works for any organisation, in public service or in private enterprise, is supposed to adopt the values of that organisation, and if that person has "character" they do it with an honest belief that they are doing the right thing. Hence I am making no personal comment on Caspar's "character" when I query the motivations of his employer, as I assume that he is parlaying the views of his employer in good faith.

Similarly, for example, I do not question the "character" of public servants for administering the laws made by the parliament under the Howard government, which in some cases appear not to be in the national interest, but more in the interests of those who fund the party coffers. This is not an unusual or particularly "left-wing" proposition surely. Perhaps you would argue that the unions who fund the ALP have an influence over policy direction that is not always in the national interest. I would probably agree with you.

You say that it is always up to me to "prove" that the facts have been "spun". I don't think that is entirely my personal responsibility Graham, but the fact that we are talking about the possibility of "spinning" here is a healthy sign that at least the door to this conversation is open. The first step is to acknowledge that all major organisations, including government, will attempt to "spin" unpopular ideas, and it is up to all of us to be alert to the possibility, and be sceptical about where these ideas are coming from and whose interests they serve.

That is where I began in this forum, by pointing out that the debate on tort reform is coming from certain quarters with vested interests in removing compensation liability so that those who are injured in industrial accidents or through professional negligence have no recourse in law. This point of view does not serve the interests of those who are injured and powerless in our society. This is not really a surprising observation and has been well-rehearsed elsewhere in the media in past months. But I do note that that your editorial intervention has occurred in this forum and not when the motivations of say, Greenpeace, are criticised elsewhere on your website.

I am disappointed that you believe that any of us who disagree with some of the opinions published on this website are running a line about some "vast right-wing conspiracy out there". But I suppose we provide some modicum of balance for the majority of your contributors who seem to believe that there is a "vast left-wing conspiracy out there", as evidenced by the forums where the perceived problems with gay rights and feminism are raised and debated ad nauseum.

Two lines struck me in the article.

“True, the main focus in Australia so far has been on children, but isn't it the parents' or guardians' role to raise their children so that they learn about self-control and a good diet?”

“The philosopher David Hume wrote, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once". Instead, governments - often with the best of intentions - just chip away at our freedoms.”

Now I think it obvious that if a government gets hold of the young, and begins to indoctrinate and control those young, then they have a least one generation of people who will support that government in the future (and it will be almost unquestionable or complete support).

This raises the issue of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights”. This has become a big issue in places such as the US and in Canada, where parents can be litigated against if their children break the law, as in shoplifting, vandalism, or more serious crimes. See “Parental Liability Laws”… http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C11.htm

The issue of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights” has of course cropped up within Family Law matters, particularly relating to child contact, where fathers have said that they are not being allowed to see their children enough, and they should have some parental rights to have more contact with them. However others have said that the fathers have no real “rights”, just “responsibilities” (IE payment of child support), and references relating to this were basically contained in the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into child custody, held many moons ago. Those recommendations were titled “Every picture tells a story”. At… www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ fca/childcustody/report/fullreport.pdf

So if the parents have limited or no “parental rights”, but only “parental responsibilities”, then the parents do not own the child, government does. The parents must do what the government dictates to meet their "responsibilities", and the parents can also become liable. It is a part of the process of “chipping away at our freedoms”, and it is happening.

“Parental responsibility” is in operation in other countries, and is being talked about here. Other things such as government programs for “mentoring” of young children are being carried out, or being proposed, where in the past this type of “mentoring” was done by parents, as a part of their job.

All seems like “Big Government” trying to establish control of consecutive generations. No “Big Nanny” in it, as it is no game.

Hello Everyone

Chav said "Personally, I like the idea of government intervention. It should be the elected government's responsibility to take precautionary measures. They have a responsibility to the community to try and structure a safe environment. "
How far should these precautionary measures go? Should we all have implants so that the government can always know where we are, all for safety’s sake, you understand. How about a Total Surveillance State with cameras in ALL public spaces, so The Authorities can see if anything bad is happening, all part of “structure(ing) a safe environment”, you understand. Once the view espoused by Chav is accepted, then in principle can be no limit, and we insensibly segue into an authoritarian / totalitarian state. Living in a free society means accepting that bad things many happen to you, sometimes it is someone’s fault, so when that happens you may have recourse to the courts. Oftentimes it is no one’s fault, and you have to accept it. If the choice is between a “dangerous” free society or a “safe” nanny state, I choose freedom.

Best Regards
Geoffrey

I have long been saying that we are a society trapped inside a forest of perceptions that are fairly unique to ourselves. Many of those perceptions are delusional and not grounded in reality.

Conde's piece, and some of the comments that follow, are a good example of how we blindly thrash round in the bushes with no clue regarding trees.

The connection between the issue he raises and the loss of moral values in our society may be too subtle for most to recognise. Which is why I recommend a read of http://www.oz-aware.com/morality1.htm

Timkins, Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:11:37 AM

Well put - I totally agree -

May I be allowed to make my mistakes with dignity and learn from them so I may grow as an individual. This rather than some disinterested bureaucrat cosseting my path through life, protecting me from the lows by eliminating the highs - leaving just "mediocracy" as a substitute for "real life".